Court closed a contempt case filed regarding a judgment dated 09-11-2017, as counsel stated orders were already passed. Aggrieved parties retained liberty to challenge the same.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 23RD MAGHA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 101 of 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 32021/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09-11-2017
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1 KARTHIK B AGED 20 YEARS S/O. R. R.L BAIJU,3RD YEAR STUDENT, B.TECH (ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATIONS),SCMS SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT HILL VIEW COLONY A-5,CHEVAYUR P.O, CALICUT 673 017.
2 SREERAJ S. AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. SREEKUMAR M.S.,3RD YEAR STUDENT, B.TECH (ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATIONS), SCMS SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT RESIDING AT MATTORA HOUSE,EDAVATTOM P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 605.
BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTSS:
1 DR. G.P.PADMAKUMAR FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,REGISTRAR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34
2 PROF.DR. J. LETHA FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,VICE CHANCELLOR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34
R1 TO R3 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC R4 TO R6 BY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, SC R7 BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.02.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SHAJI P.CHALY, J.
Cont. Case (C) No.101 of 2018
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This is a contempt case filed by the petitioner complaining the directions contained in the judgment dated 9.11.2017. Today when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that already orders are passed. Therefore, I do not find any reason to pursue the Contempt of Court case any further. Closed accordingly, leaving open the liberty of the aggrieved parties to challenge the same.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY Judge
okb.
//True Copy// P.A. to Judge
Con.Case(C).No. 101 of 2018 :4:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.9.11.2017 IN W.P(C) NO.32021/2017
ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN NANDITHA T.K.VS.APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & OTHERS 2017 (3) KLT 1089
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES :NIL
K.V.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
KARTHIK B AND ANR
DR. G.P.PADMAKUMAR AND ANR
SHAJI P CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
